(If you missed their earlier dialogue see the “My Life’s Purpose” comments #9-14 and “Church Planting Seminar: Day Two” comments #5 and 6.)

“Our Only Incorporation is the Body of Christ. Free Christians and Churches…. 

“As mainstream Christianity breaks free of the institutions that established it, and evolves into the living, breathing, and active body of Christ, the Freedom Church Network seeks to provide resources and networking opportunities for all those who walk with Christ in faith and life.”

Check it out at  http://www.FreedomChurchNetwork.com/

* * * * *

“We desire especially that the attitude of the organized New Church may no longer continue to be one of seeming antagonism or conscious superiority to other religious bodies, but rather one of modest self-appreciation, and kindly fraternal recognition of other Christians….  There is little danger, we think, of becoming too broad in our sympathies, too catholic in our feelings, or too conciliatory in our disposition and attitude toward others.  The danger, we submit, lies wholly in the opposite direction.  We believe there never has been and never can be more than one Church, in the large and comprehensive sense of the term, at any given time, –though this, like the human body, may consist of a great variety of parts.  We believe that since the time of the Last Judgment (1757), the New Church, signified by the New Jerusalem, has been and continues to be the only Church on earth.  We believe that this Church is much larger and more inclusive than any sect;  that it is distinguished less by its beliefs or doctrines than by righteousness of life, –love to the Lord and the neighbor being its great fundamental…. We believe, therefore, that members of the New Church are to be found in all existing religious bodies, –and some, doubtless, outside of all; for we cannot doubt that there are, both within and without such bodies, some who truly love the Lord and the neighbor; while some who accept the doctrines of this Church, and join the organization bearing its name, may be quite destitute of its heavenly spirit and in reality constitute no part of it….

“We believe that, since the time, and in consequence of the Last Judgment, there has been and continues to be a freer, more interior and more universal influx of spiritual good and truth into all humble, earnest and truth-seek ing minds, – giving them more enlightenment on subjects of transcendental interest…. Believing this, and finding for our belief the amplest justification in the teachings here referred to, as well as in reason …, we are anxious that the body which assumes the name and stands as the most conspicuous representative of the New Church at this time, should by its declared policy  and its attitude towards Christians, exemplify the grand catholicity of this Church.  We do not deprecate a separate organization based upon the New Doctrines; this perhaps, was unavoidable, and has doubtless been useful.  We would not lessen but gladly increase its efficiency and usefulness…. We desire especially that the Convention cease to claim for itself any special prerogatives, any special right to the Christian name or ordinances or any special efficacy in the latter when administered by its own officials; that it frankly admit…  that these ordinances are equally valid, efficacious and significant, when reverently administered by Christians of whatever name or creed….. [By this action] you will remove all just grounds for the charge or even suspicion of narrowness and illiberality.  You will regain the affection and confidence of brethren who have been alienated by what (to them) has seemed like a sectarian exclusiveness.  You will, – we doubt not, open new channels of usefulness and new avenues for the descent of the Divine Spirit, and many souls will thereby be blessed.”

- From M. Block The New Church in the New World  (New York: Henry Holt 1932, p. 306)

An old question in church history, which could be dated back to the father-priest model of the Most Ancient Church, is the proper form of church government. In the organized New Church this discussion dates back to its first inception. For instance, “At the Fourth General Conference, in 1792, there was a sharp reaction against the democratic spirit of the year before which had given the laity equal power with the clergy, and a minority group, led by Hindmarsh, brought in a proposal for an episcopal form of government.  This was forcibly voted down.”  (M. Block, The New Church in the New World, p. 69)  This centralized vs. decentralized discussion continued, sometimes hotly, in the development of the church in England and the US through the whole of the nineteenth century and beyond (ibid., p. 189ff.).

The General Church took its top-down structure from the Anglicans (ibid., p. 216), who in turn had copied the Roman Catholic model.  (For details on just how wide the power of the General Church’s executive bishop is, see P.M. Buss “A Statement of the Order and Organization of the General Church of the New Jerusalem” Bryn Athyn, PA 2000, available online by clicking here and then clicking in the page that comes up on “A Statement of the Order and Organization of the General Church of the New Jerusalem.”  NOTE: Sometimes this may take a while to load.  If it does, hitting the reload button may speed it up.)

So the end result was that the General Church adopted the papal model. However, there is something of a mystery about that adoption. The General Church’s founders, notably W.F. Pendleton, were certainly familiar with the teachings of the Second Coming about how corrupt the papal model was (e.g., Pendleton wrote eloquently in Topics from the Writings (p. 75) on the theme of God and truth leading, not ruling or commanding).  Then, driving those teachings home, those under Benade’s leadership had experienced his papal-type autocracy, particularly in the more extreme forms following his stroke (Block, op. cit., pp, 231, 240).  They also were familiar from their own experience with the long battle over centralized “popery” in Convention (Block op. cit., pp. 188ff.).  And, finally, the “fear of episcopal autocracy was strong in the breasts of many” (ibid., p. 242) members of what would become the post-Benade General Church. But Pendleton after the separation from Benade nonetheless continued in Benade’s episcopal/papal model (which Benade had first adopted 20 years earlier, (ibid., pp. 211, 216)). The mystery is how completely Pendleton believed in his decision.  For, in seeking to allay the concern over autocracy, he “laid down the principle of ‘freedom according to reason’” (ibid.).  Since such freedom is the logical opposite of the episcopal/papal model, it raises question of whether Pendleton was in fact conflicted about his decision to continue with that model.  It is interesting to speculate where the General Church might be today if he had gone the other way and made freedom of conscience the top governing principle. An editorial in Convention’s Messenger at the time of  the Academy/General Church split from Convention suggests some of the consequences of taking the course he and the General Church did follow:

 “In an editorial on the causes of the split [with Convention]…all the blame was laid on the General Church’s ‘assumption of infallibility.’ Instead of admitting that there should be varieties of usages and beliefs in the New Church, and being contented with a Convention broad enough to hold them all, [the General Church] had attempted to make their uses and beliefs a standard for all, and continually referred to Convention’s ‘denial of the Writings as the Divine Human.’  The General Church had assumed in the New Church the position of the Catholic Church in the Christian world.  ‘This resemblance is shown in a literalism of interpreting doctrine, in an assumption of the supremacy of the Church as the authorized interpreter of doctrine, in the conception of the nature and order of the priesthood and its function in the church, and also in its declarations against the ecclesiastical legitimacy of those who do not agree with it….” (Block, op. cit., p. 230ff.)

“…[T]here should be varieties of usages and beliefs in the New Church, and being contented with a Convention broad enough to hold them all” (ibid.).  What a thought.  Again, what if Pendleton had made freedom of conscience the General Church’s  priority and taken up Convention’s offer of reconciliation, made several  times by the Rev. Frank Sewall?  (There was a brief period of friendly relations with Convention following the General Church’s separation from Benade, during which Sewall made the last of his appeals, but that friendliness did not last (ibid., p. 231, 243).)  If that freedom and reconciliation had been made the policy of the two bodies, where might the overall New Church have been today?  Would it have saved both bodies from going down some of the roads they subsequently did, with unfortunate results?  It is certainly interesting to note that the Academy split came at the end of the nineteenth century, during which church membership had been approximately doubling every decade, ending in the highest membership the US organized New Church ever saw (7,095 in 1890) (ibid., p. 173).  However, after the split that growth not only stopped, but decline set in (e.g., ibid., p. 356), to the smaller numbers that still apply to both bodies today, a century later. 

For further reading

1. Do we Need Church Organizations?

2. A dialogue between Mac Frazier and Steve Simons on the evangelization implications of this issue:  See opening post at “My Life’s Purpose, and following Comments #9-13 (particularly #13) and “Church Planting Seminar: Day Two”  #5 and 6.

3. See posts at Second Advent Christian™ .

4.  Followers of Christ – Disciples or Subordinates?

“I expect to pass through life but once. If, therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do for any fellow being, let me do it now… as I shall not pass this way again.”

But as each of us contemplates that long step out of the cramped vista of natural life and onto the great stage of eternity, the larger question seems to me to be – will we have regrets for what we didn’t try, for what might have been?  Most particularly, will we regret never having tried to achieve some really great and good thing?   If we did try, it doesn’t matter if it was the longest of shots and never worked out. It doesn’t matter if we began it but it crashed and burned.  And it doesn’t matter if we were so oppressed by the burdens in our life’s journey that we had only a widow’s mite to offer.  The point is, we did give it a shot.  We did offer ourselves as tools on Jesus’ workbench, reaching to serve the highest and widest use we could imagine.  If, again, we did. 

At this very moment my classmate is talking to the ever-curious angels. So “what news from earth” (Marriage Love 182: 3, 207:2, 532, True Christian Religion 692-4) are they learning from her, about us, and others?  Are they hearing of the building of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, bringing the comfort and joy of an authentic and beautiful relationship with Him? Or is something still lacking?  Is there some great and good, and unique, contribution of ours to this work that is needed, perhaps even the main reason we’re still here?  I like to think so, for what a magnificent thing it would be to be, at last, a part of the great awakening to the full power of the two Comings.  In fact, I have this image in mind of waking in the spiritual world, when it’s my time.  In the image I am walking across the rim of a hill overlooking a beautiful valley with the angel assigned to help me through my post-death transition. “What news from earth?” he asks politely, and I turn to him and say, “After two centuries, it’s happening; it’s really, finally happening.  The good news of the Gospel of both Advents is being preached to, and welcomed by, the spiritually poor (Luke 7:22) on the great scale for which they have waited so long and that this troubled world has needed so deeply.”  My guide is surprised, but turns and gives me a big hug and shakes my hand. “I’ve prayed for this,” he says. “But come, let’s share these tidings,” and we turn our footsteps towards the city in the valley, on the banks of the river of the water of life (Revelation 22:1).

1. The teachings about the determinants of the time of death in Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 5002, 5003.

2.  The recounting of  how children are raised in heaven, perhaps most notably the story about spots appearing on their clothes, flowers and rooms when they misbehave, in Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 5601.

3. The characterization of the Biblical epistles as “useful books for the church” Apocalypse Explained 815 (and Letter to Beyer, April 15, 1766).

4.  The teachings on the “pre-Adamites” (Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 3390ff.).

5. The teaching that “The universities of Christendom are now being instructed, whence will come new ministers” (Posthumous Theological Works, I: 570) (See also Letter to Beyer, February 1767).

6. In the spiritual sense of the Good Samaritan story (Luke 10), the teaching that “’he brought him to an inn and told them to care for him’ signifies to bring to those that are well instructed in the doctrine of the church from the Word, and who are better able to heal him than one who is still in ignorance.”  (Apocalypse Explained 375: 42)

7.  The teachings on “Charity in the case of the priest; Charity in the case of Governors,…Officials under them,…Judges,…the Commander of the Army, …the Common Soldier,…the Business Man,…the Workman,…the Farmers,..Ships’ Captains,…Sailors,…Servants.”  (Doctrine of Charity 160ff.)

8. The teaching that “There are two foundations of truth; one from the Word, and the other from nature.” (Spiritual Diary/Spiritual Experiences 5709)

9. The teaching that “Unless the present little work is added to the preceding work, the church cannot be healed.” (Invitation to the New Church 25)

10. The teaching that Swedenborg’s revelation “surpasses all miracles.” (Invitation to the New Church 39, 43, 44, 55, Coronis, heading “L”)

11. The term “New Christian Church” appears only in the Coronis, heading “L.” 

12. The Canons of the New Church  aren’t, and the Invitation to the New Church isn’t.

13. The teaching that “The Holy Spirit…passes through men to men, and in the church chiefly through the clergy to the laity.” (Canons of the New Church, Holy Spirit IV). 

The main result I’ve had since discovering these legends is that I have stopped taking any teachings I thought I knew for granted.  I check back with the published work when there’s any doubt! 

I would be interested to know of any other “legend” passages.

“Consider that in the New Testament of Jesus’ 132 public appearances, 122 were in the marketplace. Of 52 parables Jesus told, 45 had a workplace context. Of 40 miracles in the book of Acts, 39 were in the marketplace. Jesus spent his adult life as a carpenter until age 30 before he went into a preaching ministry in the workplace. And, 54% of Jesus’ reported teaching ministry arose out of issues posed by others in the scope of daily life experience….”

See full article

So Christmas is a gift, a reminder to us in the midst of the hurly-burly immediacies of our distracted lives to stop and reflect, like the shepherds and Wise Men before us, on the Infinite and the Eternal.  We are, after all, in eternity right now.  And what we are and do from this beginning will define who we will be down the river of spiritual time beyond our imagination.

My first serious encounter with the explicit side of religious experience was the dreaded religion paper in the final year - 8th grade in those days – of elementary school.  Yet again laying groundwork for things to come, the experience of rational reflection stimulated by composing that paper drove home, albeit in only a preliminary way, the idea of religion being primarily a rational experience.  This idea was further reinforced by church and chapel experiences as well, all emphasizing that, no matter what your religious question, there was always a rational answer to it available and, by implication, that feelings and faith were second best to that rationality. 

On the decidedly non-rational side of things there was, in that final year of elementary school, the other new phenomenon – girls.  Most specifically, there were girls involved with that other dreaded ordeal, dancing class.  One of my male classmates even attempted to hide under a table to avoid taking part.  In retrospect, the angst of those classes seems almost poignant, a light year removed from the raw meat sexuality confronting today’s children.  But those classes were nonetheless, in their own small way, significant, again laying groundwork.  The groundwork in this case, however, was part of what I believe was the noblest undertaking of that church organization’s existence, the attempt to prepare us for the ideal of true marriage, that great blessing of human life.  The allegiance to this ideal was not lightly held, as demonstrated a half century earlier in a sensational court trial where the church, in what was perhaps its finest hour, had bravely defended that ideal in the face of ugly attack.

And so on to high school, where the explicit side of religion took center stage, as we learned in lawyerlike fashion how to interpret the codes of correspondence and construct thought frameworks able to interpret any moral or spiritual situation.  Of great significance, in retrospect, was the strong orientation to the books, i.e. the 30 volumes of Swedenborg’s theological works.  Those other books, of the Bible, were typically only mentioned in support of, or to complement, a point made from the theological works.  The Source of both sets of books, Jesus Christ, was almost never mentioned at all. Primary allegiance was to “The Word,” or “The Writings,” i.e. to the books, not to a Person. (The logic behind use of the term “The Writings” is difficult to follow since, by definition, everything Swedenborg wrote on any subject is part of his writings.) Furthermore, what mention of Divinity was made was typically de-personalizing, using terms such as the Divine Love and Wisdom, the Divine Providence, the title “the Lord,” and the almost inscrutable abstraction of the “Divine Human,” which I can recall even clergymen saying they didn’t fully understand.

In high school the banner of  marriage, or “conjugial,” love was held high and driven home.  At the same time, perhaps predictably since the effects of the Victorian age were still pretty much in place in the 1950’s, the discussions of the subject were circumspect and theoretical.  Meaning, to a teenager in the midst of sexual fantasies or pregnancy or promiscuity, that that teaching appeared to fall far short when it was needed most. The end result for many young women, I have since learned, was feelings of worthlessness, despair and an “Oh well, I’m going to hell anyway, it doesn’t matter now what I do, so I might as well have fun” outlook.  In other words, the sad and ironic end result of this ideal as here taught was too often to get kids deeper into its opposite.

And then to college. Here I learned for the first time what a potent debate weapon my Swedenborgian ideational structure could be.  In those late-night discussions with my dorm mates I found I could take on virtually any ethical or teleology issue and “win.”  I thus fell into thinking an echo of what I  had heard earlier in life, about our faith tradition being newer and better than the competition’s.  It did not occur to me that, in the bigger picture, I lost.  I had some subtle warnings, such as the fact that I “won” those discussions didn’t seem to attract anyone to my theology’s ideas.  And then there was the girlfriend who told me that I had too many answers.  But dominating one’s fellows is heady stuff for the male persuasion in that fiery time of life.  Having my own classical DJ show on the college radio station Sunday evenings added to that brew, as did an in-group experience in a student government election campaign that tangled with the college’s administration.  This was the ’60’s, after all.  It took the caustic commentaries from a sophisticated roommate to begin and, many years later, a very patient wife, to reverse course in this area and, regrettably, I still fall into this trap in too many cases.  But I’m getting ahead of myself.

After spending 5 years wandering across the curriculum in college, I finally graduated with a useless degree (”Arts & Letters”), but its limited prospects were bypassed by my being accepted into the Peace Corps for an educational television project in South America. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life.  My peers in El Cuerpo de Paz (in the Spanish of the country we were in training for) felt, under JFK’s magic, that the world’s problems could in fact be solved and we could help.  For me what hit home was that this love of the neighbor stuff wasn’t just theology - it really felt great!

I was “unselected” – in plain English, kicked out – from the Peace Corp at the end of training, basically, I think, though I was never told in precise terms, because I was too brash.  That superiority demon coming out again.  I would have done well to reflect on the implications of that at the time, but was too busy going off to seek my fortune elsewhere.  With the help of a cousin’s boyfriend, I ended up squeaking into a part-time job as a social worker, working with “predelinquent” boys, in a settlement house in the lower east side of New York City.  I started thinking about going back to school for my MSW and doing this for real but, a few months later, it became clear that the US Army was interested in me, in a drafty kind of way, so I made an end run and enlisted myself.  After which I had the second great experience of my life, basic training. It was a fascinating and exhilarating experience to be part of a disparate group of guys welded into a common use, a unit, our platoon, based on pitching right in - with rough and ready feedback if you didn’t get with the program!  There was no issue here of somebody being better than somebody else.  If your platoon was going to work and pass its tests, everybody had to get together.  You passed as a unit or you didn’t pass. I still recall one overweight guy who just wasn’t making it around the track fast enough to qualify. So while the rest of us cheered and jeered, three guys from the platoon ran with him and all but pushed him around that track.  He qualified. 

After Basic I had a classic Army experience. I had been sent by my reserve unit to get trained in communications.  So, what else, I was sent to the motor pool.  If you ever need help changing a jeep oil filter at 2 AM (I was on the late shift), you know where to come.

After the Army my life spaced out.  After the intensity, direction and clear purpose of the Peace Corps and Army, nothing in the typical workaday menu open to me seemed very interesting or meaningful.  My dad wangled me a job with a company that installed cable TV systems.  Though nobody said anything, I knew the guys I worked with resented my being there under those circumstances, and I didn’t see spending the rest of my life threading cable through conduit.  It would have been a great opportunity to do some reflection on humility, but I never got further than a case of the blahs.  But Jesus took pity on me and caused lightning to strike.

We were in Delaware working on a new statewide educational TV setup.  Their current studio setup was just 3 tractor-trailer trailers. I stopped at the end of one of them one day and fell into conversation with one of the system administrators working there.  In what turned out to be a life-changing discussion, he convinced me that educational TV was the career path of choice and offered to help me apply to the program he had gone to at Michigan State. That fall, a few months later, after just squeaking my way in (since my C undergrad average didn’t exactly impress) I hopped in my old VW beetle and pointed north and west to MSU’s grad school.  And no, it did not occur to me to thank God for giving me this opportunity. I hadn’t, after all, ever been taught to think of Him as a person you could thank, and it certainly didn’t occur to me spontaneously then.

I paid my way through MSU by writing manuals on pump operation for refinery employees.  More significantly, on the social side of things, I ran into a very attractive young lady and one thing led to another.  Basically, I pushed her around.  A lot.  We got engaged, since that was what one did when serious, or so I thought I had been taught. And as long as we had the external niceties, things like consideration, or even love, weren’t that big a deal, right?  It sounds pretty harsh to say it like that but when you take the window dressing off, that in fact is how harsh it is - and was.

At this point I was starting to get itchy.  Educational TV was interesting, but I started looking for something more fundamental, and fell into a fascination with the design of non-verbal communication, i.e. semiotics, and its possible application to allow educational material to reach a much larger group of people, notably in the Third World, than was possible when that material had to be translated into the myriad languages of this planet.  I then ran into a small book by a man at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education that looked like it was pertinent and I decided to apply to work under him to see if I could make my idea go.  With some more reading I realized that there were other people there, some of them famous, who also might have useful thoughts on all this.  So, with what looks in retrospect like just total brass, I went to visit Harvard and talked to some of them.  I don’t think I would have been as courteous as they all were if I had been in their shoes and this whippersnapper had come knocking all unannounced.  But go I did.  While there, at the critical moment of truth, as it turned out, Jesus reached down and helped me out yet again.  When I went to talk to the prof whose book was my original reason for coming, he was out of the country.  Only his secretary, or what looked like a secretary, was there.  This was where Jesus must have reached down once more since I was, with her, for once in my life, not brash but respectful. I discovered later that she was anything but just a secretary;  She was an administrator in the department, with a degree from Harvard herself.  Another visitor showed up at the same time on a similar mission to mine (was that timing an accident, or occasion for reflection?).  He was not respectful to her and was told goodbye in short order.  In my case, she began what turned out to be a momentous process by giving me the phone number of one of their program’s grad students who, she said, could tell me more about the program. ”Tell me more” turned out to be a considerable understatement.  The grad student didn’t just tell me about the department but gave me invaluable and patient advice on writing my application.  (I spent 2 weeks, 8 hours a day, writing and - with her help - rewriting, and then again rewriting just the personal statement.)

I was accepted, once again just squeaking by, to their program at a Master’s level.  Also once again, it never occurred to me to say thank you to the Man Who had arranged this.  So, come September, I bid my fiancé   good-by and drove that old Beetle, containing all my worldly possessions, 18 straight hours from East Lansing to Cambridge, Mass. 

That fall had a dark spot in the midst of all my new challenges.  In retrospect, I am sure my fiancé  must have long had reservations about our relationship, as well she might, but it did not really come out till I had been gone a while.  When she called me up with storm warnings I hopped the next plane and went out there unannounced.  I tried to push her around some more in the one time I saw her.  Then she simply disappeared, going to stay with a friend, her roommate later told me.  I never saw her again. A  week later I got a package in the mail with the copy of the Word I had given her and her engagement ring.  But no note.  I am sure she must have had a difficult time to begin with, although her story apparently ultimately had a happy ending, for which I thank Jesus in His mercy.  However, it has been a source of lingering regret that I didn’t know, hadn’t been taught, didn’t have any more of a clue about charity in handling this most important subject, of relating properly with women.  It was certainly primarily my fault, but things could have been very different if Marriage Love (sometimes titled Conjugial Love) had been shown to me as a practical manual and not just theology.

My long search for what I wanted to do with my life continued through Harvard, moving finally to a PhD program at the regular grad school. To pay the rent, I went through several grad student type jobs until, Shazam!, I ran by accident (or was it?)  into a department in the Medical School that did research on kids’ eye problems.  I knew, at last, I had come home.  Not long after that, I met a winsome young woman at a Swedenborgian church camp and found home for real.  I proposed to her at Walden Pond on a lovely fall day and promised her we would never be rich but that she’d never be bored.  I think she’d agree I lived up to that promise!  She’s been a wise and patient partner and blessing through four children and many twists in the road since.

My religious story was far from done, however.  I spent a good chunk of time in the next 40 years in writing for or editing Swedenborgian church publications.  My main topic was almost always evangelization.  For most of those years I never stopped to think about just what it was that I was trying to sell in that evangelization. Not that there was any lack of clues if I had stopped to look for them, most notably the remarkably tiny number of people that had ever been attracted to the Swedenborgian organizations despite a denominational history two centuries long.  But all that came to sudden sharp focus when our son, an ordained Swedenborgian clergyman, resigned not only his pastorate but his church membership.  At one of Pastor Rick Warren’s church growth seminars, he had had an epiphany and come to realize that he wasn’t really a part of the “Swedenborgian Church” or the “New Church” – he was a part of the Christian church, the church of Jesus Christ, of which the teachings of the Second Coming were only the latest dispensation.  He resigned his office and membership when it became clear that the leadership and culture of the church organization he was trying to serve was not supportive of the only way he felt free to teach the full gospel of Jesus Christ.

As you might expect, watching our son go through this transformation was a stunning experience for his mother and  me.  Here was this idealistic kid we’d raised, who had won every award the church high school had to give and who had looked forward for years to theological school and then to his ministry. To put the icing on the cake we had had the delight of seeing his clerical career start up with what looked like a smashingly successful roar in his first pastorate.  Then, in a twinkling, it had all gone to pieces. Was he right?  How could I, in all those years, have missed a problem with my church on a scale that would warrant such a dramatic and, apparently, career-ending response?  I began to go back and look at the teachings involved from his new perspective.  To make a long story short, one question led to another and much of my thinking and assumptions about the organized “New Church”came down like a collapsing house of cards. For those interested, I’ve spelled out some of my thoughts on my websites, most notably at

How Important is a Relationship with Jesus?

Do We Need Church Organizations?

Which Books Of Swedenborg are Divinely Inspired?

Swedenborg and Spiritualism and Spiritism

(You can find some of our son’s thinking online at his Second Advent Christian™ site.)

I also went back and  re-read Marguerite Block’s seminal history of the Swedenborgian/New Church movement, The New Church in the New World (most of which is available online).  With my newly opened eyes, her account sounded like just more of the same endless theological wrangles and power struggles that have troubled the Christian church since its inception millenia ago. Wouldn’t you expect a church based on the full teachings of Jesus Christ, including those of His Second Coming, to be different, “all things new” (Revelation 21: 5, Doctrine of the Lord 62, 65) and better?

Block’s book was published in 1932.  That not much has changed, however, is suggested in a recent talk by Frank Rose, an audio recording of which is available online. (Note the associated handout on the main page.)  I also found food for thought here in a pungent column on “Church Politics” in Relevant Magazine (reprinted here.  If that link doesn’t work, click here).

From my new perspective, I feel like a total dope for not seeing the issue here myself for all those years.  Why did I have to raise a son to adulthood and wait for him to complete all his training and experiences, and then tell me about them, before I could see the blatant truth here?  It seems so obvious now: I am not “Swedenborgian” either – I do not worship Swedenborg or the books he wrote. I’m also not “new church,” if that term is taken to mean something other than Christian.  I worship Jesus Christ, in both His comings. For me this means being dedicated to developing a relationship with Him and learning the teachings of His Word in all its dispensations, from Genesis to The True Christian Religion (see The Second Advent Christian™ Canon of Scripture). And, finally, instead of focusing on differences with other faith traditions, particularly with other Christians, I now try to find things we have in common, and build bridges of mutual charity.

* * * * *

“ Among  [the ancient] peoples the doctrinal and ritual matters differed, but still the church was one, because to them charity was the essential thing. Then was there the Lord’s kingdom on earth as in the heavens, for such is heaven (see n. 684, 690). If the same situation existed now all would be governed by the Lord as though they were one person; for they would be like the members and organs of one body which, though dissimilar in form and function, still related to one heart on which every single thing, everywhere varied in form, depended. Everyone would then say of another, No matter what form their doctrine and external worship take, this is my brother or sister; I see that he or she worships the Lord and is a good person.”  (Arcana Coelestia 2385)